Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[GullFoss]

Kind of weird takes by angry people in this thread. I'm simply pointing out that changing the funding mechanism to a well funded operation probably has zero impact on the operations. The assumption being that it continues to be properly funded.

Can someone explain to me while Legal Aid Alberta - a non-profit largely funded by the government - has such a giant reserve? And why doesn't that large reserve suggest that perhaps the funding model needs to be revised? And why does a government looking into that get labeled poorly?

I don't really get it beyond the idea that people in this thread are super ideological and are just applying manufactured rage to the topic de jour.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Kind of weird takes by angry people in this thread. I'm simply pointing out that changing the funding mechanism to a well funded operation probably has zero impact on the operations. The assumption being that it continues to be properly funded.

Can someone explain to me while Legal Aid Alberta - a non-profit largely funded by the government - has such a giant reserve? And why doesn't that large reserve suggest that perhaps the funding model needs to be revised? And why does a government looking into that get labeled poorly?

I don't really get it beyond the idea that people in this thread are super ideological and are just applying manufactured rage to the topic de jour.

An actual lawyer with actual experience gave actual information on what this means, and instead of reading it, your response is:

“kind of weird takes by angry people”
“I don’t really get it”
“people are super ideological and apply manufactured rage to the topic de jour”

Ever heard the phrase “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink”?

You’re the horse. If you don’t get it, it’s because you didn’t even put in the minimum effort to get it while it was handed to you on a silver platter, and just instead decided to assume anyone you disagree with is angry and ideological.

It’s not hard to have a smarter take than what you’re offering. So give it a shot.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

I don't understand how changing the funding system makes Legal Aid Alberta unviable. They have an operating surplus...

Much ado about nothing imo

So, if the government dismantles a reasonably well-running legal aid program they will still be on the hook for paying for most of the same legal services, but now a highly inefficient and resource intensive case by case litigation process (using actual court time and government lawyers who would otherwise be doing other work) will replace the current administrative out of court legal aid process.

It will cost the taxpayer far more more in direct legal fees, unnecessarily waste vast amounts of court time, delay all civil and family matters while criminal matters draw an even more inordinate share of the available resources, and cause many criminal lawyers' businesses to suffer (and encourage them to leave the practice area and potentially the province - though that very last part is hard to assess how significant of a risk that is).

From the post you quoted. This will delay trials, create an administrative burden on the courts and cost more.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

U MAD BRO

Fixed

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

Fixed

Ha that ####ing made me laugh.

[Canadianman]

why bother engaging with nitwits?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Canadianman

why bother engaging with nitwits?

Ever seen a cat play with a dead mouse?

[MBates]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Kind of weird takes by angry people in this thread. I'm simply pointing out that changing the funding mechanism to a well funded operation probably has zero impact on the operations. The assumption being that it continues to be properly funded.

Can someone explain to me while Legal Aid Alberta - a non-profit largely funded by the government - has such a giant reserve? And why doesn't that large reserve suggest that perhaps the funding model needs to be revised? And why does a government looking into that get labeled poorly?

I don't really get it beyond the idea that people in this thread are super ideological and are just applying manufactured rage to the topic de jour.

LAA does not really have huge amounts of cash in 'reserve' as I think most people would understand that description. The accountants here will likely be able to better explain it but this is from the audited financial statements:

5.Deferred revenue The Society has received funding for services to be delivered to clients, more than that required. As a result, $74,427 [2023 – $37,711] of the funding from the Province of Alberta has been deferred and a corresponding amount of cash has been classified as restricted cash – deferred revenue for this purpose. This will be recognized as the expenses are incurred.

From a functional side of things, payments out for legal services during Covid were way down (courts were significantly shut down in operations). Then there was a significant jump on the forward looking liabilities as the notional pay rate to Roster Lawyers was bumped twice in short succession from $92.40 to $100 and then to $125 as well as the tariff of fees was completely overhauled. So in essence LAA ended up with more in the bank in cash than it needed during a transition phase...but currently it is known they will need much more going forward. So sure they have $84 million or whatever the number is in the bank but they know they are going to need to spend over $100 million this fiscal year. On April 1 as per the Governance Agreement, the Minister was supposed to pay an additional $25 million approximately, and apparently just decided to skip that payment.

While money is obviously relevant (and is being used as the apparent story for why the Minister has taken this sudden drastic step to abandon a long term stable agreement) this is not just "changing the funding mechanism." What was abandoned without prior warning on a couple days notice over a long weekend is the overarching Governance Agreement.

What the government attempted to force upon LAA as a last minute out of the blue 'replacement' is merely a "Grant Agreement" that would send that $25 million payment owing but now attached to a completely different offered set of terms - that deletes the Law Society of Alberta as a party (removing the ability of the legal profession's regulator to maintain oversight of LAA and how one of the largest blocks of legal services in the province are delivered) and, according to LAA, fundamentally shifts to the Minister having all the power and no obligations.

Key elements of sound governance and principles that are fundamental to a free and democratic society were addressed in the Governance Agreement. The Law Society oversight role included ensuring proper protection of confidentiality and solicitor client privilege within the LAA program. For example, the financial abilities of an accused to fund their criminal defence would not be something the Minister could find out about while his department is actively prosecuting that person.

Another major factor that was strongly protected in the Governance Agreement was independence from government interference (an issue this government seems to have had some difficulties with before if you recall):

Subject to this Agreement, Legal Aid Alberta is independent from the Minister and the Law Society, but is accountable to both for the operation of Legal Aid Alberta and the Legal Aid Plan.

The principle of independent operation is recognized and respected by the parties to this Agreement. Legal Aid Alberta is free to provide Legal Aid Services to clients, act in the public interest and to improve the Legal Aid Services without interference of any sort except as provided in this Agreement.

The principle of independence of legal counsel, including the protection of the confidentiality and privacy rights of Legal Aid Clients, is recognized and respected by the parties to this Agreement. The principle applies to private roster counsel and staff counsel. Legal counsel serving a Legal Aid Client is free to act in the best interest of the client without interference of any sort except through the established policies and procedures as set out in the Rules.

So what is at stake going forward is not just money. What is at stake is an Alberta that claims to love freedom having the same executive branch cabinet run policing, the prosecution service, the judiciary and now purportedly also trying to run the defence.

If this was just about money, you would just extend the Governance Agreement and keep the reasonably well functioning stable system running while you fight over the dollars and cents. That has been done previously several times including by this government.

So, what might be the reason this particular government would suddenly now want to cancel an agreement that contained its commitment to all of the bolded provisions above? They haven't answered to that.

That is why this is much ado about something - something very problematic if you do not particularly like authoritarian conduct to continue to make major inroads on your previously stable democratic institutions.

I think it is worth reminding everyone of the findings of the Ethics Commissioner against the current Premier in relation to the justice system:

Speaking to an Attorney General about a specific ongoing criminal case, in the way that Premier Smith did on the call with Minister Shandro, is not acceptable. Just as was the case with Prime Minister Trudeau in the SNC-Lavalin case, Premier Smith was the only person who, by virtue of her position, could clearly exert influence over the Attorney General and had the power to remove Minister Shandro from his position as Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I believe that Minister Shandro must have felt considerable pressure and concern for his tenure as Minister as a result of the call.

In the whole scheme of things, it is a threat to democracy to interfere with the administration of justice. It is the first step toward the type of judicial system often found in a non-democratic or pseudo-democratic country where members of and friends of those in power are shielded from prosecution or are acquitted by the courts on the instructions of those in power. As well, those opposing the Government face trumped up charges and are convicted based on political instructions to the judiciary which slavishly follows the government agenda in order to keep their positions. This independence is a cornerstone of any democratic society and democracy will fail without it.

As Commissioner Mario Dion stated in the Trudeau Report II, it only takes one instance of seeking to influence a decision of the Crown to improperly further another person’s private interest to contravene the section of the Act. The attempt does not have to be successful. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Tyler Shandro, stood his ground in defending the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service and its right to be free from political interference. Nonetheless, there was an improper attempt to influence the independence of the legal system. I make this finding taking into consideration the briefings the Premier had had on prosecutorial independence and the fact that she was aware of the SNC-Lavalin case.

And retired Justice Kent of course concluded the following about then Justice Minister, Kaycee Madu, "Did Minister Madu attempt to interfere with the administration of justice? He did."

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.alberta.ca/external/news/kent-report-final.pdf

I mean how many successive Justice Ministers and current Premiers getting found by independent inquiries to have attempted to interfere with our justice system will it take before Albertans take this stuff seriously?

Finally, if you want you can put all of the above aside and just consider the front line practical aspects of the looming disaster in the court system.

1. LAA, a $100 million plus annual budget organization, currently has no governance agreement...because of shenanigans pulled by the government. Just for a moment consider the emergency LAA Board meeting they had to have on the long weekend because they were given two days notice that a 5 year term agreement would suddenly not be renewed (after more than a year of negotiations indicating it would). Happy Canada Day!

2. LAA Board members include lawyers, accountants, MBAs, etc. with personal professional obligations in addition to actual legal and fiduciary obligations by being on a society Board. They cannot just sign a document they have not had any chance to review, understand, or assess nor can they just keep on running the services as though they have money that they do not have and the government is now saying they will not get except on unconscionable terms. There are a huge number of LAA employees and laws that can make Board members personally liable if they fail to meet payroll or make CRA remittances etc.

3. I am not privy to any internal decision making, but it seems obvious to me that the lawyer, account, MBA types on the Board were very aware they needed to make a quick assessment based on the amount of cash they currently have (the only money they can count on) that they cannot continue past July 9th to take on any more new liabilities by entering contracts to pay for more legal services for more LAA clients.

4. Even existing files may have lawyers applying to withdraw as counsel since a contract with an insolvent LAA to maybe get paid tens of thousands of dollars owed to you is not the same as being properly retained.

5. I have personally rejected two offers to take new clients this week due to all of the above and I know of several other colleagues who will be doing the same and some who will probably just resign from the LAA Roster for good.

So no matter what else shakes out in the underlying dispute (and whether LAA will be exposed as a wasteful bloated top heavy organization in need of reform or not) the manner in which the Minister has handled the situation has created the scenario where LAA cannot legally continue to provide the services that the justice system needs provided to avoid collapse.

The Minister won't extend the old Governance Agreement, won't pay the money he defaulted on as of April 1 without the new forced terms, and as of now, I am not aware of any change that will avert the pending July 9 disaster.

[Fuzz]

If there is ever a debate as to if this government is doing something in good faith or not, you'd have to be an utter moron to assume the former given past precedent. We are cynical because of their actions, and I believe have every right to be.

[MBates]

News has just been released of a joint statement - crisis averted for now:

The Minister of Justice, Legal Aid Alberta and the Law Society of Alberta agree to extend the recently expired Governance Agreement until September 5, 2024.

The extension ensures the independence of Legal Aid Alberta. All parties agree this is necessary to carry out its mission of upholding the Rule of Law and protecting the rights of disadvantaged Albertans in the justice system.

This allows the three parties time to finalize the negotiation of a new Governance Agreement that provides for a long term and independent legal aid program.

The parties expect that negotiations will be productive, therefore, with an extension of the Governance Agreement in place, Legal Aid Certificates will continue to be issued.

The justice system will continue to operate while the parties focus on resuming negotiations and we will not be engaging further with the media at this time.

So as has been familiar to this government they made a grandiose move that they apparently had no clue how far reaching the consequences would be and then had to undo said move after everyone who did know pointed it out.

[GGG]

Add it to the list.

[Ozy_Flame]

Manufactured crisis by the UCP that didn't need to happen. Unnecessary, juvenile, gaslighting, and most of all, shaking the foundations of the judicial system without foresight or consideration for average Albertans.

But then, average Albertans usually get the short end of the stick with this gong show.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MBates

News has just been released of a joint statement - crisis averted for now:

So as has been familiar to this government they made a grandiose move that they apparently had no clue how far reaching the consequences would be and then had to undo said move after everyone who did know pointed it out.

Glad they did the right thing, even if it’s only somewhat of a bandaid solution at this point.

Originally Posted by GGG

Add it to the list.

I’m more concerned about the list of times they haven’t changed course after having it clearly explained to them how far reaching and boneheaded a decision they made is.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Dentoman

Rural no. Urban probably (420 dentists in Calgary so far).
I have not signed up. Administration burden is too much for my office, and honestly, I don't trust Sunlife to administer this program fairly.

This is probably more appropriate for the Canada thread but since this discussion was just happening a couple weeks ago here I will post this bit of news. The feds are tweaking the program to get more dentists onboard and let them "try out the program."

Also, apparently around 50% of dentists have signed up already which is considerably higher than the 20-something percent I had previously heard.

The latest change would allow dentists to submit claims on a one-off basis without having to formally enroll as a provider under the program. The change would give providers the freedom to participate without having to register.

Mr. Holland maintains that once they’ve tried it out, they will see how straightforward and simple it is to take part.

But the new process doesn’t address the heart of the dentists’ concerns, because they still have to agree to the same terms and conditions either way, said Canadian Dental Association president Dr. Joel Antel.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...t-to-win-over/

[Torture]

Well this seems like a totally reasonable, well thought out plan.

KANANASKIS – Alberta’s government is allowing targeted hunts on “problem” grizzly bears after a nearly 20-year ban on hunting the threatened species.

The province’s forestry and parks ministry may issue what it is calling a grizzly bear management authorization for the purpose of hunting if a wildlife officer determines a grizzly is involved in a human-bear conflict or an “area of concern.”

Under the revised Wildlife Act, Forestry and Parks Minister Todd Loewen will create a pool of eligible individuals who may receive authorization to hunt a grizzly involved in a human-bear conflict or an area of concern.

To be eligible, a person must be an adult resident of Alberta and hold or obtain a recreational hunting licence in accordance with Section 29 of the act. Individuals must apply to the minister to be included in the pool and the minister can then issue permission to hunt a grizzly bear if a wildlife officer has given appropriate authorization.

If selected to kill an animal, one must be on-site within 24 hours of notification to obtain the authorization, which must also include the geographic area where hunting is permitted, the time at which it is allowed, and method and equipment allowed or prohibited.

Troublesome grizzly? Okay, let's go down our list of UCP insiders lottery winners and instead of taking action ourselves to protect people from a bear that poses a safety threat immediately, we'll ask some individual citizen to be there in 24 hours and deputize them to hunt the bear. And they'll totally know which bear is the right bear to kill and nobody will ever abuse this claiming they just shot a 'troublesome' bear, nope.

https://www.rmoutlook.com/kananaskis...-cases-9192825

[GGG]

Memories of bear 148.

https://thewalrus.ca/bear-148/

Killed in the last Grizzly hunt before BC banned them in 2017.

[Torture]

Nevermind the issues with hunting a keystone species, I'm sure the troublesome bears will patiently for the raffle to be done and winner to arrive before they decide to hurt anyone or cause any more problems.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Torture

Well this seems like a totally reasonable, well thought out plan.

Troublesome grizzly? Okay, let's go down our list of UCP insiders lottery winners and instead of taking action ourselves to protect people from a bear that poses a safety threat immediately, we'll ask some individual citizen to be there in 24 hours and deputize them to hunt the bear. And they'll totally know which bear is the right bear to kill and nobody will ever abuse this claiming they just shot a 'troublesome' bear, nope.

https://www.rmoutlook.com/kananaskis...-cases-9192825

Did the minister consult with experts on this decision? Is someone who has never shot a Grizzly bear able to do it humanly, as would be done with tranquilizers, or do they just shoot until dead? Does this program come with any monitoring and review of each kill? Is this just to save money, vs hiring more wildlife experts? And finally, is Sliver behind this?

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Did the minister consult with experts on this decision? Is someone who has never shot a Grizzly bear able to do it humanly, as would be done with tranquilizers, or do they just shoot until dead? Does this program come with any monitoring and review of each kill? Is this just to save money, vs hiring more wildlife experts? And finally, is Sliver behind this?

No consultation.

[KelVarnsen]

Is Sliver going to sign up for the lottery?